J

- A14036

- 23

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK

v.

NICHOLAS LOGOTHETIS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2702 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 6 , 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV

- 2020

- 008210
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2023 Nicholas Logothetis (“Logothetis”) appeals from the entry of judgment
in favor of American Express National Bank (“AMEX”) . We affirm.
Logothetis opened an account with AMEX in 2000. At that time, AMEX
issued him a credit card ending in 2006. In 201 5 , AMEX issued Logothetis a
second credit card ending in 3004. Logothetis made monthly payments on
the accounts for a period of time before stopping the payments. In 2015, the

account for the credit card ending in 2006 was closed with an outstanding
balance exceeding $17,000. I n July 2020 , t he account for the credit card
ending in 3004 was closed with an outstanding balance of $30,098.9 6 . In

December 2020, AMEX commenced the present action to recover the unpaid

credit card debt . In its complaint, AMEX a sserted a single claim for breach of

contract and referenced only the account for the card ending in 3004 . TheJ

- A14036

- 23

- 2

-

complaint made no reference to the card ending in 2006 . The matter
proceeded to arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of Logothetis.
AMEX appealed the arbitration award to the trial court and the matter
proceeded to a non

- jury trial. Logothetis did not appear at trial; however, his
counsel appeared on his behalf. AMEX presented one witness, Rebecca
Muldoon (“ Ms. Muldoon”), an assistant custodian of records who authenticated
two exhibits introduced by AMEX. Exhibit A consisted of a standard
Cardmember Agreement (“Agreement”). M s. M uldoon testified that after
opening an account, AMEX mails the Agreement and the credit card to the

cardh older . M s. M uldoon testified that the Agreement presented was the
written contract that Logothetis agreed to when he initially used his credit card
ending in 2006. The Agreement contains a “Promise to Pay” clause indicating

that , by using the credit card, the account holder agrees to pay all charges

incurred on the account for the card . In addition, AMEX introduced Exhibit B
which consisted of monthly credit card statements showing Logothetis’s use of the card ending in 2006. Ms. Muldoon explained that generating electronic
monthly statements for the cardholders is AMEX’s standard practice and part

of it s regular course of business.

M s. M uldoon explained that the last four digits of an account number
may change if a card is lost and replaced; however, the preceding numbers

—
which denote the actual account number

— remain constant. M s. M uldoon
testified that, although the last four digits of Logothetis’ account changed fromJ

- A14036

- 23

- 3

-

2006 to 3004 in 201 5 , the account remained unchanged. M s. M uldoon also
testified that the final payment AMEX received on the account was for $1,000
in July 2020. She explained that at the time of the last payment, the account
had an outstanding balance of $47,743.88. Specifically, M s. M uldoon
explained that the credit card ending in 2006 had a n outstanding balance of
$17,644.92 and the credit card ending in 3004 had a n outstanding balance of
$30,098.96.
Logothetis contended that there were two separate AMEX accounts
rather than merely one account with a replacement credit card. Logothetis
argued that AMEX failed to prove the existence of any enforceable contract for
the account ending in 3004 because the Agreement introduced at trial was for

the account endi ng in 2006. Logothetis claimed that the account ending in
2006 is an unrelated account that is not pertinent to the instant litigation,
which pertains solely to the account ending in 3004.

I n May 2022, the trial court entered a non

- jury verdict and a judgment

in favor of AMEX. 1 The trial court determined that Logothetis had two separate
accounts with AMEX, and that Logothetis breached his contract with AMEX for
the account ending in 3004. Accordingly, the court awarded damages to AMEX

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Although the non - jury verdict was dated May 4, 2022, neither the verdict nor service of the verdict pursuant to Pa.R.C.P

. 236 w ere entered on the docket on May 4, 2022. Instead, the docket indicates that the May 4, 2022
non - jury verdict as well as judgment for AMEX were both entered on the docket on May 18, 2022 ( although the verdi c t was date

- stamped May 19, 2022 )

.J

- A14036

- 23

- 4

-

in the amount of $30,098.96. However, the trial court concluded that AMEX
failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the account ending in 2006. 2
Logothetis filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal

. 3 This
Court quashed the appeal , vacated the May 18, 2022 judgment , and directed

that Logothetis be permitted ten days in which to file a post

- trial motion

. 4
Logothetis thereafter filed a post

- trial motion , which the trial court denied.

After the trial court denied the motion, Logothetis filed a timely notice of
appeal. H owever, no judgment had yet been entered in the action. See Hall

v. Jackson , 788 A.2d 390, 395 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2001) (explaining that an appeal properly lies from the entry of judgment , not from the denial of post

trial motions ). Nevertheless, our appellate jurisdiction was perfected when
j udgment for AMEX was properly entered on the docket on December 6, 2022.

See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (providing that “ [a] notice of appeal filed after the
announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order
shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof ”); see also

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 AMEX has not cross

- appealed the trial court’s rul i ngs regarding the account ending in 2006.

3 T he trial court later entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration

.

4 T his Court was without jurisdiction to decide the appeal because the trial court entered judgment simultaneously with the non - jury verdict and before the ten

- day period for filing post

- trial motions following entry of the verdict had expired

. See Jenkins v. Robertson , 277 A.3d 1196, 11 99 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that where judgment i s filed simultaneously with the verdict, the judgment i s premature and therefore void , thereby leaving this Court without jurisdiction to address the appeal ).J

- A14036

- 23

- 5

-

Johnston the Florist , Inc. v. TEDCO Const. Corp. , 657 A.2d 511 , 513 (Pa.
Super. 1995) ( en banc ) (holding that this Court’s appellate jurisdiction is
perfected where appellant prematurely appealed from an order denying post

trial relief and judgment was later entered )

. Both Logothetis and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925

. On Appeal, Logothetis raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by issuing the written decision, dated May 4, 2022[,] in favor of [AMEX] and against [Logothetis], in the amount of $30,098.96.

2. Whether [AMEX] failed to establish the three (3) elements of a breach of contract action in Pennsylvania, as against [Logothetis ], including but not limited to failing to establish:
(a) the existence of a contract by and between [AMEX]

and [Logothetis], including its essential terms;
(b) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and
(c) resultant damages allegedly sustained by [AMEX].

3. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by admitting into evidence at trial [AMEX’s] Exhibit A, a generic credit card member agreement.

4. Whether [AMEX] failed to comply with federal law by providing a written contract governing the credit card purportedly issued by [AMEX] to [Logothetis] at the time of the trial and failed to post the alleged agreement conspicuously online so that it may be easily accessed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. [§ § 1601

- 1667f ] Truth in Lending Act.

5. Whether [AMEX] failed to satisfy the requirements of the business record exception to the hearsay rule, Pa.R.C.P. 803(6)[,] and the uniform business records as evidence act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6108.

6. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by misapplying the business records exception to the hearsay ruleJ

- A14036

- 23

- 6

-

and admitting into evidence at trial [AMEX’s] Exhibit B, consisting of monthly credit card statements. Logothetis’s Brief at 1

- 2 ( issues reordered for ease of disposition, unnecessary capitalization , quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)

Our standard of review in a non - jury trial is well established:

We must determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial judge committed error in the application of law. Additionally, findings of the trial judge in a non - jury case must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as a verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed absent error of law or abuse of discretion.

Davis ex rel. Davis v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. , 775 A.2d 871, 873 (Pa.
Super. 2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, where t he trial court ’ s findings

are based upon the credibility of the witnesses , they ar e especially binding on appeal , unless it appears that the court abused its discretion or that the court ’ s findings lack evidentiary support or that the court capriciously disbelieved the

evidence. See Century Indemnity Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co. , 173 A.3d
784, 802 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In his first issue, Logothetis baldly claims that the trial court erred and
abused its discretion by issuing a written decision in favor of AMEX. Initially,
we must determine whether we may address this issue. Whe re, as here, a
trial court directs a defendant to file a c oncise statement of matters
complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), any issues not raised in

that statement are waived

. See Korman Commercial Props. v.
Furniture.com, LLC , 81 A.3d 97, 102 (Pa. Super. 2013)

. Moreover, a conciseJ

- A14036

- 23

- 7

-

statement must be specific enough for the trial court to identify and address
each issue the appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See In re A.B. , 63 A.3d
345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2013)

. When , in a vague Rule 1925(b) statement, an appellant fails to identify the specific issue he wants to raise on appeal, the
issue is waived, even if the trial court guesses correctly and addresses the
issue in a Rule 1925(a) opinion. See 202 Island Car Wash, L.P. v.
Monridge Construction, Inc. , 913 A.2d 922, 925 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006)

. Here, the trial court did not specifically address Logothetis’s first issue
in its opinion , noting that it found the issue to be a “ general statement

. ” See
Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 3 n.3. Logothetis’s vaguely worded first issue

was not specific enough for the trial court to identify or address the precise
issue that Logothetis wished to raise on appeal. Thus, we deem hi s first issue

waived.
In his second issue, Logothetis claims that AMEX failed to establish the
elements required for a breach of contract

. Three elements are necessary to

establish a cause of action for breach of contract : (1) the existence of a
contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of the contract; and (3)
resultant damages. See 412 N. Front St. Associates, LP v. Spector Gadon

& Rosen, P.C. , 151 A.3d 646, 657 (Pa. Super. 2016 ). For a contract to be
enforceable, the nature and extent of the mutual obligations must be certain,
and the parties must have agreed on the material and necessary details of
their bargain. See Lackner v. Glosser , 892 A.2d 21, 30 (Pa. Super. 2006).J

- A14036

- 23

- 8

-

Implied contracts arise under circumstances which, according to the ordinary
course of dealing and the common understanding of people, show a mutual

intention to contract. See Ingrassia Constr. Co. v. Walsh , 486 A.2d 478,
483 (Pa. Super. 1984). The intent of the parties to an implied

- in

- fact contract
is inferred from their acts in light of the surrounding circumstances

. Id

. Contract interpretation is a question of law; therefore, our standard of review

is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary. McMullen v. Kutz , 985 A.2d
769, 773 ( Pa. 2009)

. Logothetis argues that AMEX failed to prove the existence of a n
enforceable contract between h imself and AMEX because the Agreement

introduced at trial was not for the credit card ending in 3004, and instead
pertain ed to the card ending in 2006. Logothetis asserts that AMEX’s failure
to pro duce the agreement for the card ending in 3004 at trial establishe d a
meritorious defense to the breach of contract claim

. Logothetis also argues
that AMEX failed to establish the second element for a breach of contract

because Ms. Muldoon could not testify with certainty as to the exact date of

the breach of the agreement for the card ending in 3004 . Finally, Logothetis

maintains that AMEX did not establish the third element of a breach of contract
because it did not break down the damages allegedly sustained as a result of
the breach ( i.e ., principle, interest, penalties, etc .).
The trial court considered Logothetis’s second issue and determined that

it lacked merit. The court reasoned:J

- A14036

- 23

- 9

- Every time a credit card account is approved with [AMEX] , the Agreement is sent alongside of the physical credit card. [ See ] N.T., 4/29/22, [at] 7. The Agreement states the annual interest rates of the card, the annual fees of the card, as well as how the interest is calculated. [ See AMEX’s] Exhibit A, [at] 1, 5. It also states that when the account is used during a transaction, [the use of the card] signals an acceptance to the terms of the Agreement. [ See i d . at ] 3 [,] 10. The Agreement also notes the
a ccount holder ’ s “ Promise to Pay ,” which reads as follows:

You promise to pay all charges, including charges you make, even if you do not present your card or sign for the transaction, charges that other people make if you let them use your Account, and charges that Additional Cardmem be rs make or permit others to
m ake.

See [AMEX’s] Exhibit A; see also N.T., 4/29/22, [at] 3.
For multiple years, [Logothetis] utilized the card and made payments in a timely manner, therefore indicating the acceptance of the terms of the Agreement. These terms of the Agreement were the same terms that were sent in the mail to [Logothetis] when he received his [AMEX] a ccount ending in 3004. [ See ] N.T., 4/29/22, [at] 12.

* * * *
In this case, there was a cardholder who received a detailed agreement alongside his credit card, then used the credit card for years ’ worth of transactions, paid the card in a timely matter for years and clearly established an implied contractual relationship with [AMEX]

. T herefore, the first element for a breach of contract issue is satisfied.

* * * *

As shown in [AMEX’s] Exhibit A, the [A] greement spans over nine pages, with the first two pages displaying charts with bold letter headings which explained the agreements rates and fees, how the interest is calculated, and any penalties and fees that may be acquired by the cardholder. The remaining seven pages lay out a broken

- down explanation of general instructions and various aspects of the cardholder obligations, with the title of each sectionJ

- A14036

- 23

- 10

-

in bold lettering to its left. In addition to the clear language of the card agreement, [Logothetis] displayed his knowledge of how to properly use the credit card by his previous timely payments made over years of utilizing the credit card.

Whether or not [Logothetis] read the [A] greement section titled “ Promise to [P] ay ,” he was aware that he must pay his monthly credit bill. By choosing to stop paying [AMEX] , there was a clear breach of the contract that was made, and at one time followed, between [AMEX] and [Logothetis]

. * * * *

The court found for [AMEX] and against [Logothetis] in the amount of $30,098.96. These damages were derived because of the unpaid balance on [his] account, which has a direct correlation to [his] breach of the [A]g reement.
Therefore, because there was sufficient evidence to show that there was a contract between [AMEX] and [Logothetis , ] including its essential terms, that there was a breach of duty imposed by the contract [,] and that there were resultant damages sustained by [AMEX] , this court submits that [AMEX] did satisfy the necessary elements to establish a breach of contract

. . .. Trial Court Opinion, 1/ 3 /23, at 5

- 8 ( footnote, quotation marks, and
unnecessary capitalization omitte d ).

W e discern no abuse of discretion or error of law by t he trial court in
reaching its determination that AMEX produced sufficient evidence to establish
an existing contract, breach of the contract, and resultant damages. The trial

court credited Ms. Muldoon’s testimony that AMEX sends the Agreement with
every new credit card , which Agreement contains all rates, fees, interest, and
penalties for the cardholder

. Therefore, Logothetis would have received the
Agreement when he received the credit card ending in 3004. Logothetis

dis played his knowledge of the terms of the Agreement by making monthlyJ

- A14036

- 23

- 11

-

payments for the purchases he made on the account for the credit card ending
in 3004. Additionally, Exhibit B showed payments made by Logothetis for
purchases he made with the credit card ending in 2006, further demonstrating

his understanding of his agreement to pay AMEX for purchases made on his

credit card ending in 3004 . Logothetis consistently made payments for the
purchases he made on the card ending in 3004 until July 20 20 , when he
abruptly stopped. This cessation of payment constituted a breach of the
Agreement. Therefore, Logothetis’s second issue merits no relief

. In his third issue, Logothetis contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting into evidence AMEX’s Exhibit A, which is the
Agreement. While this issue was raised by Logothetis in the concise statement
and the statement of questions involved, Logothetis omitted any discussion of
the issue in his brief. Thus, we deem the issue abandoned

. See In Interest

of T.Q.B. , 286 A.3d 270, 273 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that issues raised in
a Rule 1925(b) concise statement that are not developed in appellate brief are
abandoned ).
In his fourth issue, Logothetis contends that AMEX failed to comply with

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA ”) , s ee 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601

- 1667f , which
requires , inter alia , that lenders disclose information about all charges and

fees associated with a credit card

. The trial court determined that the issue

wa s waived because Logothetis did not raise it prior to or at trial. See Trial
Court Opinion, 1/3/23 , at 3 n.4.J

- A14036

- 23

- 12

-

Our review of the record discloses that Logothetis did not raise any issue
regarding TILA in his pleadings or pretrial filings , and his counsel did not raise

the issue at trial. Instead, Logothetis vague ly invoked TILA in his motion for

reconsideration

. S ee Motion for Reconsideration, 5/20/22, at 4 (merely
stating that , pursuant to TILA there must be a written credit card agreement , and the agreement must be posted online ). However, issues raised for the

first time in a motion for reconsideration are waived and may not be
considered on appeal. See Prince George Cente r, Inc. v. U.S. Gypsum

Co. , 704 A.2d 141, 145 (Pa. Super. 1997) ( declining to consider issues raised

for the first time in a motion for reconsideration , noting that such issues are
beyond the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction ). Thus, Logothetis failed to
preserve this issue for our review. 5

In his fif

th issue, Logothetis claims that the trial court abused its
discretion by admitting Exhibit s A and B into evidence pursuant to the business
records exception to the hearsay rule provided by P a .R.E. 803(6) and the
Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act provided by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108
(“the Act”)

. O ur standard of review of a trial court ’ s decision to admit or exclude

evidence is well

- settled: “ the admissibility of evidence is within the sound

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

5 In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, t he trial court took “ judicial notice of the [AMEX] credit card [A]greement being conspicuously online for easy access per the TILA requirements.” See Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 3 n.4.J

- A14036

- 23

- 13

-

discretion of the trial court, which appellate courts will not disturb absent an

abuse of discretion or error of law.” Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v.
Wicker , 206 A.3d 474, 482 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted)

. An abuse of
discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have
reached a different conclusion, but instead requires demonstration that the

lower court ’ s decision was a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill

- will, or such lack of support from the evidence or the
record so as to be clearly erroneous. See id

. The business records exception has been incorporated into Pennsylvania
law through the Act and Rule 803(6). See Bayview , 206 A.3d at 483

. The
Act provides , in pertinent part , as follows : (b) General Rule.

- A record of an act, condition or event shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the tribunal, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108(b). “ As long as the authenticating witness can provide

sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the

records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness for the business records of

a company, a sufficient basis is provided to offset the hearsay character of the

evidence. ” Boyle v. Steiman , 631 A.2d 1025, 1032

- 33 (Pa. Super. 1993)

. Rule 803(6 ) provides , in relevant part, as follows:
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:J

- A14036

- 23

- 14

- * * * *
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity . A record (which includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation in any form) of an act, event or condition if,
(A) the record was made at or near the time by

-- or from information transmitted by

-- someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a “ business ,” which term includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Pa.R.E. 803(6 ).

The Act and Rule 803(6 ) substantially overlap in that both generally
require that a custodian or other qualified witness testify that the record was
made at or near the time of the event recorded and that the record was kept
in the regular course of business. Bayview , 206 A.3d at 483. Moreover, both
provide for the trial court to make a determination as to whether the
circumstances surrounding the record justify its admission or indicate a lack

of trustworthiness. Id

.J

- A14036

- 23

- 15

-

Logothetis argues that the trial court should not have admitted Exhibit s
A and B under the Act or Ru le 803(6) because AMEX failed to present evidence
establishing that the document s were trustworthy and reliable. Logothetis
points out that Ms. Muldoon reviewed the e xhibit s for the first time one week
before trial. According to Logothetis, Ms. Muldoon admitted to not knowing

AMEX ’ s data compilation practices and could not confirm whether the records
were created accurately or timely. Logothetis maintains that Ms. Muldoon had
no knowledge of how AMEX keeps its computers, backs up its computers,
whether the data in the computers was protected, or the working of its internet
technology department. Logothetis further argues that Ms. Muldoon could not
attest that the monthly statements were protect ed from corruption or hacking ,

or state how they were maintained or backed up.

The trial court considered Logothetis’s fifth issue and determined that it

lacked merit. The court reasoned :

In this case, the records custodian clearly established the procedures of [AMEX] and how the process of these statements are made. [Ms. Muldoon] explained the time that it takes for the transactions to be posted to the account, that this information is then transmitted onto the statement, and that the statement is generated monthly and mailed to the cardholder a s well as being available online. She is also able to review these statements whenever there is a dispute or case against [AMEX]

. [ See ] N

. T ., 4/29/22, [at] 18, 20. She also explained that this is [AMEX’s] regular course of bu siness in generating electronic statements of their cardholders, and that this electronic statement generation is a regular practice of producing cardholders purchasing statements. [ Id . at] 27. [Logothetis] never produced any source of information that could lead this court to find that [Ms. Muldoon,] who testified on behalf of [AMEX,] lacked trustworthiness.J

- A14036

- 23

- 16

- [With respect to] the

. . . Act [,]

. . . [a] s stated in the analysis above, the records custodian testified as to the records preparation and that it was made in the regular course of business of [AMEX] and made at or near the time of the cardholders purchasing act

.
B a sed on the above, this court respectfully submits that the requirements of the b usiness r ecords e xception to the Hearsay rule as well as the

. . . Act were satisfied.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 11

- 12 ( unnecessary capitalization omitted)

. We discern no abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law by the
trial court in admitting Exhibit s A and B pursuant to the Act and Rule 803(6)

.
T he trial court credited Ms. Muldoon’s testimony that electronic statement
generation is a standard practice , and that AMEX prepar ed the monthly

statements , in the regular course of is business , at or near the time of the
cardholder’s purchases. The court further noted that Logothetis did not
produce any evidence that Muldoon lacked trustworthiness. The fact that

Muldoon did not personal ly create the Exhibits A and B, as well as the fact that

she reviewed th os e e xhibits for the first time one week before the trial , is

immaterial. All that is required under t he Act and Rule 803(6 ) is that a
custodian or other qualified witness testify that the record was made at or
near the time of the event recorded and that the record was kept in the regular

course of business. See Bayview , 206 A.3d at 483 ; see also I n re Estate

of Indyk , 413 A.2d 371, 373 (Pa. 1979) (explaining that it is not essential for
the admission of evidence under this section to produce either the person who
made the entries in question or the custodian of the record at the time theJ

- A14036

- 23

- 17

-

entries were made )

. Ms. Muldoon’s testimony , as an assistant custodian of
records for AMEX, satisfied these requirements. Thus, we discern no abuse of
discretion or misapplication of the law in relation to the trial court’s

determination that Exhibit A and B w ere admissible under t he Act and Rule
803(6 )

. Accordingly, Logothetis’s fifth issue merits no relief.

In his sixth issue, Logothetis again argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by determining that Exhibit B was admissible under the business
records exception , albeit on a different basis. Logothetis claims that the
exception does not apply because Exhibit B was prepared in anticipation of
litigation

. Initially, we must determine whether Logothetis preserved this issue for

our review. In order to preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, a
party must make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of
the proceedings before the trial court. See Thompson v. Thompson , 963
A.2d 474, 475

- 76 (Pa. Super. 2008). On appeal , this Court will not consider

a claim which was not called to the trial court ’ s attention at a time when any

error committed could have been corrected. See id

. In his appellate brief, Logothetis contends that Exhibit B was prepared
in anticipation of litigation and is therefore not subject to the business records
exception. Logothetis has not directed this Court to the place in the record

where this issue was preserved for our review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117 (c)
(providing that “ [w] here under the applicable law an issue is not reviewableJ

- A14036

- 23

- 18

-

on appeal unless raised or preserved below, the statement of the case shall
also specify

. . . the manner in which, the questions sought to be reviewed

were raised . . . [and] the method of raising them ” ); see also 2119 (e)
(providing that “[w] here under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable

on appeal unless raised or preserved below, the argument must set forth, in
immediate connection therewith or in a footnote thereto, either a specific

cross - reference to the page or pages of the statement of the case which set
forth the information relating theret o. . ..” )

. Nevertheless, our review of Logothetis’s pleadings and pretrial filings
discloses that the issue was not raised in those filings. Our further review of
the record discloses that, a lthough Logothetis’ counsel object ed to Exhibit B
at trial, he did not object on the basis that the exhibit was prepared in
anticipation of litigation. Instead, counsel objected to Exhibit B on the basis

that Ms. Muldoon had not testified that she had knowledge of the method of
preparation and maintenance of AMEX’s records, or record keeping practices.

See N.T., 4/29/22, at 26. Thus, as Logothetis did not raise any objection in
the court below that Exhibit B was prepared in anticipation of litigation, he
failed to preserve th e issue for ou r review. Accordingly, Logothetis’s final issue

is waived.
As none of Logothetis’s issues merit relief, we affirm the judgment in

favor of AMEX.
Judgment affirmed.J

- A14036

- 23

- 19

-



### Date: 11/03/2023